Dukkha and Shikantaza

[dumm]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Hello,


I really am enjoying the posts. Thank you Jundo for the post about suffering. I recently have found that since I have started doing zazen on a daily basis there seems to be my "self" screaming at me. Maybe its languishing, but sometimes it can be a pit paralyzing when one listens to the teachings and really is confronted by the actual putting them into use. It is very shocking how much resistance one runs up against in your own mind. Sometimes it seems that one can get trapped between desire to recreate a supposed time of joy or serenity and trying to force your thoughts or mind to let go. There is the rub I guess. Not forcing but simply letting them flow. Its amazing how sometimes its easier said then done.

Gassho,
Dave

[Cameron]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Thanks for the refresher in Dukkha and impermanence. I think I needed it today. As I was reading the original post, I started thinking about what life would be like if most people just accepted things as they are; held that one idea was no better than another. Would we still have slavery? Would Hitler control the world? Would we ever find cures for disease? Clearly, as I'm glad Jundo pointed out, there are things that are harmful in this world, and things that need to be changed.

I sometimes have a difficult time reconciling the words of Buddhism (esp. Zen Buddhism) with the reality of the world. For instance, many zen practitioners are involved in social action, peacemaking, environmental activism -- basically trying to change the world as it is rather than accept it as it is.

This is a contradiction.

But maybe that's zen? Learning to deal with more than one point of view at a time, no matter how opposing the views might be? Or is it more simple than that? Is it like that mantra that 12 steppers use?

"... Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Hello doogie,

I think what is meant by accepting things as they are is not the same as saying all things are correct as they are. Events in the past, good and bad, have caused the current situation, so the current situation, good or bad, could not be other than it is. So accept the good and the bad; don't lament the past or the present.

If something is wrong, take action. Even better, if something will become wrong, act now to prevent it from becoming so. Those could be one and the same.

DB

[doogie]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Aren't 'dissatisfaction', 'disappointment', 'unease' and 'frustration' necessary for social change?

[Eika]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Aren't 'dissatisfaction', 'disappointment', 'unease' and 'frustration' necessary for social change?

Hi, Doogie.

Those things often accompany social change, but they aren't necessary (my opinion only). All that's needed for social change is the willingness and action by a group of people to change something that needs to be changed. That can be done without being disappointed, etc. Doesn't really happen that way, of course, but we are human beings, not saints. Plus, we cannot change what happens in a group of people's minds (social group) only what happens in our own (an individual within a group) . . . a "good man/woman in a storm," so to speak. Our part of social change can be done, possibly most effectively done, by using our awareness of our personal biases, frustrations, failings, etc to prevent us from acting in a way that is against the common good. Awareness is powerful in that regard.

My 2 cents,
Bill

[doogie]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

I suppose it is possible, Eika. I guess I was thinking about it more pragmatically than philosophically. Many of the really big social movements came about because an individual or group was outraged about an injustice or inequality, and rather than accept it, they tried to change it. Civil rights, anti-slavery, and the growing marriage equality movement come to mind. What I'm getting at is this: isn't a certain amount of suffering necessary? Without it, wouldn't the innovation train just stop?

I agree that the work must begin with us, and we should be examples to the rest of the world. In essence, we should become the medicine we wish to practice. But I'm still having difficulty reconciling the notion that we can accept the world as it is, yet still be able to fight (and sometimes it is a fight) for the world we want to actualize.

If we accept the weeds in our garden, why would we pull them? They are part of the garden. Not all weeds are bad. After all, parsley is a weed. We must distinguish between one weed and another. Call one good and one bad, or one tasty and another disgusting. We make distinctions, have preferences, attempt to make the garden into something we want to sit in, and not the overgrown rat's nest it currently is. Many social issues don't involve things that are necessarily wrong, or involve things that are obviously harmful, but rather a person might see that the world would work better if only...

If only healthcare were universal, if only the death penalty were abolished, if only marijuana were legalized, if only abortion were illegalized...

Can we cultivate our practice, yet still desire to change the world around us to fit the image in our heads?

[Cameron]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

I can't accept the world as it is. I will do my best to improve it. While I do my best to improve it, I will accept it as it is; moment by moment, zazen.

Like Jundo said a few posts ago "The result is something like moving forward, step by step, yet ever arriving home."

That's what I think. But I'd prefer not to.

Cam

[Eika]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Many social issues don't involve things that are necessarily wrong, or involve things that are obviously harmful, but rather a person might see that the world would work better if only...

If only healthcare were universal, if only the death penalty were abolished, if only marijuana were legalized, if only abortion were illegalized...

Can we cultivate our practice, yet still desire to change the world around us to fit the image in our heads?

Joko Beck and Jundo do a better job explaining this than I can, but here goes:
For us to truly change something, we must first accept it for what it is, otherwise the thing we are changing is an idealized image full of misperceptions and baggage. Before I can pull weeds, I have to face the reality that there are indeed weeds in my garden. In a sense, I must become OK with their place in the universe in which I live. Then, and only then, can I really make the correct decision as to whether pulling them is a good idea or not. Acceptance is not the same as resignation. I can accept that I'm impatient and too goal-oriented while simultaneously avoiding resigning myself to allow those traits to grow.

I don't know if I'm explaining this well or not.

Joko Beck says, "For these things to be OK doesn't mean that I'm happy about them." Those weeds are the circumstances of our life and we must face that reality before we can act with wisdom and compassion on our and others' behalf.

Gassho,
Bill

[Eika]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

One other quick note:
I think the Western idea of acceptance implies a negotiation with someone (God, Govt, etc). When I say, "I cannot accept this," I'm really saying, "The terms of this deal are not too my liking, therefore I will not forfeit my right to further negotiations or complaint."

In Zen there is no one to negotiate with, there are only things-as-it-is as Suzuki Roshi might say.

Too many words here,
Bill

PS: Right on, Cam:

I can't accept the world as it is. I will do my best to improve it. While I do my best to improve it, I will accept it as it is; moment by moment, zazen.

[will]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Doogie
But maybe that's zen? Learning to deal with more than one point of view at a time, no matter how opposing the views might be? Or is it more simple than that? Is it like that mantra that 12 steppers use?

As has been mentioned before, Doogie's Zen is not Eika's Zen. We don't have to do what everyone else does. If we pick up say environmental work then that is what we do. It's a choice. The Dharma can be expressed in many ways.

To save all sentient Beings, though beings are numberless.
To transform delusion, though delusion immeasurable.
To penetrate reality, though reality is boundless.
To attain Enlightenment, a way non attainable.

Gassho

W

[will]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

re: Doogie

Sometimes we dive head first into things without knowing what we are getting our self into. If we have a building anger towards people who "don't care", then maybe it would be best if we took a break from that cause. I had a friend who did proactive stuff for years and then quit because he didn't see the point if "no one cares" and he felt he got too worked up about it. Maybe later he might go back to it. Who knows? The point is, can we do these things without making them something that "we" do. Having a grandiose idea of how the world should be is not going to help. We do what we can according to insight and wisdom.

Gassho

[disastermouse]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

If only healthcare were universal, if only the death penalty were abolished, if only marijuana were legalized, if only abortion were illegalized...

Can we cultivate our practice, yet still desire to change the world around us to fit the image in our heads?

It's the 'if only' part of this that's deluded. Things are as they are - but that also includes our active and creative role in these things. One can achieve many things and yet still not require that they be different than they are.

Chet

[will]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

A proactive Zen Buddhist teacher:

http://www.upaya.org/roshi/

W

[disastermouse]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

I'm not sure how I feel about 'Engaged Buddhism'. Engaged as compared to what? Passivity is not expressly recommended by any Buddhist sect that I can think of.

I think that here in America, we think of Buddhism as a decidedly 'progressive' religion, but this is not entirely the case..

Chet

[Eika]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Doogie
But maybe that's zen? Learning to deal with more than one point of view at a time, no matter how opposing the views might be? Or is it more simple than that? Is it like that mantra that 12 steppers use?

As has been mentioned before, Doogie's Zen is not Eika's Zen. We don't have to do what everyone else does. If we pick up say environmental work then that is what we do. It's a choice. The Dharma can be expressed in many ways.

Will's absolutely right . . . the question of how to reconcile zen's call for our acceptance of our lives and our personal, deeply felt need to change the world for the better are a kind of koan. Accordingly, those must be figured out by each of us in our own way.

Peace,
Bill

[doogie]

Re: Dukkha and Shikantaza

Doogie
But maybe that's zen? Learning to deal with more than one point of view at a time, no matter how opposing the views might be? Or is it more simple than that? Is it like that mantra that 12 steppers use?

As has been mentioned before, Doogie's Zen is not Eika's Zen. We don't have to do what everyone else does. If we pick up say environmental work then that is what we do. It's a choice. The Dharma can be expressed in many ways.

Will's absolutely right . . . the question of how to reconcile zen's call for our acceptance of our lives and our personal, deeply felt need to change the world for the better are a kind of koan. Accordingly, those must be figured out by each of us in our own way.

Peace,
Bill

You're right of course. But then Zen is a religion for many people, and as such the practitioners share many commonalities. And the way that most zen practitioners seek to engage the world (if they do engage the world) is through personal suffering. Upaya and her sister organizations deal mainly in suffering. They teach one to be with the dying. They ease the suffering of the destitute, the homeless, the ill, the grieving, the incarcerated. These are all good and noble things, but it shows that Buddhism has become about suffering in America. This is true even in Japan, I hear. I was talking to a woman who said that when she sees a zen monk walking down the street, she'll cross to avoid him. Why, because they represent death. They're only seen by most people at funerals, and by the side of the sick and dying. This was her saying this, so I have no idea if it's true. But she said this was a fairly common attitude.

Maybe this is due to the fact that most people who turn to Buddhism, do so later in life (rather than be born into it), and do so because they are suffering in some way, and seek palliation from that suffering. But most Buddhists never move beyond their own suffering. Some that do begin to help other individuals suffering. But how many zen Buddhists lead a movement of social reform or political action (or try for a political office.) Achievement has almost become anathema to Buddhists.